‘I WONDER WHAT YOU KNOW…’: TEACHERS DESIGNING … · ‘I wonder what you know…’:...

‘I wonder what you know…’: Teachers designing requests for factual information Author Name: Sandy Houen Contact Email: [email protected]

Joint AARE-NZARE 2014 Conference, Brisbane 2014 of 14

‘I WONDER WHAT YOU KNOW…’: TEACHERS DESIGNING REQUESTS FOR FACTUAL INFORMATION

Sandy Houen Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane

Abstract

The early years are significant in optimising children’s educational, emotional and social

outcomes and have become a major international policy priority. Within Australia, policy levers

have prioritised early childhood education, with a focus on program quality, as it is associated

with lifelong success. Longitudinal studies have found that high quality teacher-child

interactions are an essential element of high quality programs, and teacher questioning is one

aspect of teacher-child interactions that has been attributed to affecting program quality. Open

ended questioning is linked to higher cognitive achievement, however teachers overwhelmingly

ask more closed than open questions. In the classroom, like everyday interaction, questions in

interaction require answers. Teachers use questions to set agendas and manage lessons, and to

gauge students’ knowledge and understanding.

Drawing on data from the Australian Research Council project Interacting with Knowledge:

Interacting with people: Web searching in early childhood, this paper focuses on an extended

sequence of talk between a teacher with two students aged between 3.5 and 5 years in a pre-

school classroom as participants search for images on the Web. Ethnomethodological and

conversation analysis approaches examine how the teacher designs her interactions to prompt

children’s displays of factual knowledge, and how the design of factual questions affect a

student’s response in terms of what and how they respond. In focusing on how the teacher

designs factual questions and how children respond to these questions it shows that question

design can close down a student’s reply; or elicit a range of answers, from one word to extended

more detailed responses. Understanding how the design of teachers’ questions can influence

students’ responses has pedagogic implications and may support educators to make intentional

decisions regarding their own questioning techniques.

Introduction:

Quality early childhood education is now a major international policy priority. Findings from the Effective

Provision for Pre-school Education (EPPE) study (Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, &

Taggart, 2004) reveal quality early childhood programs aid children’s development, ease the effects of

social disadvantage and provide the foundations for a successful start to school. Follow-up studies highlight

teacher-child interactions, along with interactions with peers and materials, as integral to program quality

(Hamre et al., 2012; Mashburn, Hamre, Downer, & Pianta, 2006; Mashburn & Pianta, 2010; Siraj-

Blatchford, Sylva, Muttock, Gilden, & Bell, 2002; Siraj-Blatchford, 2009). As Mashburn and Pianta (2010)

point out:

actual interactions in classrooms or settings (with adults, peers, materials) are the mechanisms

responsible for the effects of early education on child outcomes, and that program improvement

efforts aimed to influence child outcomes must explicitly target these interactions, if they are to

yield the desired effects. (p.4)

Quality teacher-child interactions are receiving significant attention in early childhood policy initiatives at

both a national and international level.

Within Australia, the Council of Australian Government’s (2009) Investing in the Early Years – A National

Early Childhood Development Strategy (Council of Australian Governments, 2009) took the position that

all children should have access to quality early childhood programs in the year prior to formal schooling,

taught by qualified early childhood teachers. With the aim of improving and promoting program quality,

the National Quality Standards (NQS) (Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority, 2012),

an assessment framework, was introduced to rate early childhood programs according to seven quality



areas.

Two essential elements of ‘quality’ highlighted in the NQS and curriculum documents are (1) connecting

curriculum content to student’s prior knowledge and (2) teacher-child interactions ( Crèche and

Kindergarten Association of Queensland, 2011; Department of Education Employment and Workplace

relations, 2009; Queensland Studies Authority, 2010). The first quality element is that teachers should build

on what students already know. The Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality authority asserts

that “each child’s current knowledge, ideas, culture, abilities and interests are the foundation of the

program” (n.d.). As a start, then, teachers must first determine what students know. One way to determine

students’ prior knowledge is to prompt a display of knowledge through social interaction, such as

questions.

The second quality area relates to teacher-child interactions. The Queensland Kindergarten Learning

Guideline (Queensland Studies Authority, 2010) describes “ active listening, questioning, engaging in

sustained and meaningful learning conversations, introducing ideas and language, modelling, explaining,

collaborating and challenging ideas” (p. 16) as effective teacher practices – all achieved through social

interaction. Mehan (1979), a pioneering researcher of classroom talk, identified that the co-ordinated

actions of teachers’ and students’ talk support the accomplishment of classroom lessons. Mehan (1979)

identified a three-part interaction that commonly occurs in teacher-child interaction. Labelled the

‘Initiation, Response and Evaluation’ (IRE) sequence, the first turn is the initiation usually in the form of a

question from the teacher, the second turn is the student’s response to the teacher’s initiation, and the third

turn is an evaluation that might include a teacher’s assessment of the student’s response. This three-step

sequence has been expanded further in terms of what teachers say in the third turn teacher response. For

example, in addition to an evaluation, the third turn might also include feedback, a comment or a reply by

the teacher about the student’s response (Baker, 1991; Lemke, 1990; Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard,

1992). More recently, Lee (2007) investigated how a teacher’s third turn is based on contingency, and

responds to and acts upon the student’s prior turn at talk, designed to progress the interaction. For example,

a teacher could ask, “What would you do if you got lost?” The student could respond with many different

answers, one being, “Telephone my dad.” The teacher’s next turn is often based upon the student’s

response. One possible response could be, “Do you know the telephone number?” This question might not

have been asked if the student’s response was, “walk home.” In other words the teacher’s response is

dependent (or contingent) upon the student’s answer.

Teachers use questions to initiate teacher-child interactions. Questions are broadly categorized into closed

or open questions (Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2008). Open questions such as ‘What makes you happy?” are

linked to improved cognitive outcomes, and therefore correlated with a higher quality education, yet

approximately 94% of questions teachers ask are closed (Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2008), such as “Are

you happy?” This finding highlights the critical importance of teachers’ questions as a way of promoting

learning within quality early childhood education programs, and calls for further research relating to how

teachers use questions in early childhood classrooms.

Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies have studied the design of questions used in the

institutional context of the classroom, and in everyday life more broadly. Three main question designs have

been identified: (i) yes/no interrogatives (YNI) (Raymond, 2003), recently known as polar questions

(Stivers, 2010) or candidate answer questions (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2013); these questions are closed

questions in that either a Yes or No response is required; (ii) ‘Wh’ questions (or Q word questions (Stivers,

2010), such as “Why are the clouds black before a storm?” and (iii) alternative questions (Stivers, 2010),

such as “Do you want the orange or the apple?”. Regardless of design, when a question is asked, a

common-sense assumption is that the logical response will be the provision of a response. Research shows,

however, that question designs call for particular types of responses. Aligning responses are called type-

conforming responses, whereas, misaligning responses are labelled non-type conforming. A YNI design

makes a yes/no (or equivalent - e.g. a nod) answer relevant in response. For example:

1. Tea: Did it have spots?



2. Stu: yes (or no ) (or semiotic response such as a nod)

‘Wh’ questions are designed for particular types of responses. Questions that begin with (or include)

“who”, “where”, “when” make a person, place and time appropriate in a response (Raymond, 2003;

Schegloff, 2007). For example:

1. Tea: Where did you find the lady beetle? (where question design)

2. Stu: In my garden. (a place is a relevant response)

Alternative question designs, of which there were none used by the teacher in this data set, provide

responders with a choice between alternatives (Stivers, 2010). For example:

1. Tea: Will you be back today or tomorrow?

2. Stu: tomorrow.

Certain replies are preferred depending on question design. YNI’s preference agreement (Heritage, 1984;

Pomerantz & Heritage, 2013; Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987). Pomerantz and Heritage (2013, p. 213)

suggest the following two examples show how questions can be designed in ways that display the

expectation of a particular answer:

Example 1:

1. A: Do you belong to a church now?

2. B: Yes (is the preferred response)

Example 2:

1. A: You don’t want that lamb chop do you?

2. B: No (is the preferred response)

Examples 1 and 2 demonstrate Raymond’s (2006) point that responses align most often with the

restrictions of question design. Heritage and Raymond (2012) show that how a question is asked positions

the questioner and responder along an epistemic gradient ranging from not knowing (K-) to knowing (K+)

(Heritage & Raymond, 2012). Hayano (2013) provides the following three questions to illustrate the

epistemic position conveyed in question design:

1. Who were you talking to?

2. Were you talking to Steve?

3. You were talking to Steve, weren’t you? (p. 399)

The first question invokes the lack of, or minimal, knowledge held by the speaker. The second question

suggests that the questioner has some knowledge, while the third question asserts the speaker’s strong

belief that it is true. The design of the question can indicate that the epistemic gap between questioner and

responder is either large or small, or somewhere in between.

Additionally, Stivers and Rossano (2010) assert that different actions in social interactions mobilize

responses to different degrees. They note that, “depending on what sort of sequence-initial action an

individual performs, a response of a particular type is a relevant next (e.g. after greetings, requests,

invitations, and offers)” (p.4). For example, a greeting is conditional on a return greeting (Sacks, 1995).



A: Hello

B: Hi

With a focus on teacher questions, ethnomethodological and conversation analytic research has shown that

questions are used to promote students’ participation (Levinson, 1992), manage and control lessons, gauge

students’ understanding, request action and assess students’ knowledge (McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979).

While much of this research has focused on whole-group formal lessons, Koshik, Freed and Ehrlick’s

study, focusing on teacher-student conferences that prompt students to self-correct mistakes, found that

teachers’ questions can also convey, rather than elicit, information (Koshik, Freed, & Ehrlick, 2010). For

example, the question, “Who blew the three little pigs house down?” requests information from the student,

where as “Does that word look right to you?” might signal to the student that a word is spelt incorrectly,

and prompt a correction.

Teachers more often than not already know the answer to the questions they ask (McHoul, 1978; Mehan,

1979). These ‘known-answer’ or ‘test’ questions can be used to elicit information, including factual

information from the student. When this elicitation is related to students’ factual knowledge, subsequent

interactions may promote opportunities for learning new factual information. Teachers implement a range

of interactional resources to elicit from students pre-existing knowledge and understanding (Margutti,

2007), and use this displayed knowledge as a foundation on which to build new knowledge. The practice of

finding out what children know as a foundational base aligns with the range of teaching strategies identified

in the Early Years Learning Framework (Department of Education Employment and Workplace relations,

2009), the Queensland Kindergarten Guidelines (Queensland Studies Authority, 2010) and Building

Waterfalls 2nd edition (Crèche and Kindergarten Association of Queensland, 2011).

Requests for factual information can be implemented in both implicit and explicit ways. A direct question,

such as “What do you know about ladybeetles?” is a straightforward explicit way to seek information,

whereas “I wonder what that is” is a declarative that invites a response and does “requesting” (or

questioning in a softer implicit way). Building on the definition of questioning proposed by Ehrlich and

Freed (2010, p. 6), questions that call for factual information are defined as “utterances that (a) "solicit"

(and/or are treated by the recipient as soliciting)” [known facts] and (b) "are delivered in such a way as to

create a slot for the recipient to produce a responsive turn" [that provides factual information] (Ehrlich &

Freed, 2010, p. 6). Factual knowledge questions require the recall of facts, and are considered less complex

than higher order questions (Bloom, 1956; Lasley, 2010). Sahin and Kulm (2008) examined sixth grade

mathematics teachers’ use of probing, guiding and factual questions to find that teachers used factual

questions as a tool to monitor students’ recall of mathematics facts or procedures before progressing onto a

new topic (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). As early childhood curriculum frameworks instruct teachers to build on

student’s prior knowledge, factual questioning might be an important tool to elicit this knowledge.

Recognising the importance of teachers’ use of questions as a strategy for determining children’s prior

knowledge, this paper investigates a single case of an early childhood teacher and her use of questions

during a Web search activity. Throughout the search, the teacher calls on students to display their factual

knowledge. Particular analytic attention is directed to sequences that involve the teacher’s questions that

call on students to display factual knowledge and their responses.

Data and Analytic Approach:

The paper draws on video recorded data, from a corpus of over 200 hours, collected for the Australian

Research Council project entitled Interacting with Knowledge, Interacting with People: Web Searching in

Early Childhood (Danby, Thorpe & Davidson) (Ethical approval no. 1100004180) that investigated the

extent and activities of Web searching in kindergarten and home contexts in Queensland, Australia. Data

collection for the project occurred in three phases: (1) a large scale survey of staff seeking reports on their

usage, as well as their views, about using online technology; (2) video recordings of over 200 hours of

teachers and children, aged between 3.5 and 5 years, in a kindergarten (pre-school) context, engaging with

each other and the Web as part of everyday practice, and (3) a survey of families’ views, and use, of digital



technology. Data reported on in this paper is drawn from phase 2 and focuses on a classroom event

involving the interactions of a teacher and two children (pseudonyms given). The video recorded

interaction was transcribed using Jeffersonian notation (Jefferson, 2004) (see appendix A for a transcription

key) to capture key features of talk including intonation, pauses, sound stretches, emphasis and utterances

as well as the verbal language used by participants (Psathas, 1995). In addition, a screen recording

program, Camtasia, tracked what happened on the computer screen during the interaction. Screen shots of

the participants from the video-recorded data and from the Camtasia recordings are embedded within the

transcripts were embedded within transcripts however for publication purposes these images have been

omitted.

In the episode discussed here, during a whole group planning session the teacher prompted a child (Mena)

to recall the ladybeetles she had seen in the garden during a working bee held recently at the kindergarten.

The teacher used this topic to introduce the whole class to the plan to create a flower garden at the

kindergarten. Children proffered the names of insects that might be attracted to their flower garden. One

idea suggested by Rory, based on his prior experiences at home, was that they might get hairy caterpillars

in their garden.

Upon closing this whole group time, and transitioning the children to indoor learning experiences, the

teacher proposed that some children might like to do a search for insects on the computer. This offer is

taken up by two children (Mena and Rory), whose group time suggestions of lady beetles and hairy

caterpillars became the motivation for a Web search. The analytic focus is to investigate the teacher’s

pedagogical strategies as participants perform a Web search looking for images of lady beetles and hairy

caterpillars.

The study’s methodological approach draws on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis that focuses

in fine-grained detail on the moment-by-moment, unfolding interaction. Ethnomethodology’s interest is in

finding out how talk, action and interaction contribute to participants’ shared understanding of the

unfolding interaction. Conversation analysis examines the sequential features of talk-in-interaction to show

how talk is organized and produced as part of a social process co-constructed by participants (Hutchby &

Wooffitt, 1998). The video recording of the Web search allowed for repeated reviewing for fine-grained

transcription and investigation of how the teacher’s design of factual information requests affects how the

students take up and respond to her requests.

Calling for Factual Information:

Three question designs have been found to be used by the teacher to ask for students’ factual knowledge.

The first question design is the Yes/No Interrogative, which in educational terms would resemble a closed

question. The second design, the ‘Wh’ question, cannot be answered with “yes” or “no” and can fall into

the category of both open and closed questions. For example, “What’s that?” (when pointing at an apple)

asks for specific information whereas “What do you know about ladybeetles?” offers scope for a range of

responses based on factual knowledge. The third question design is the ‘I wonder …’ prefaced declarative

(Curl & Drew, 2008). The three different formats are now discussed.

Yes/No Interrogatives

In looking at Yes/No questions students either provide a ‘yes’ (extract 1) or ‘no’ response (extract 2). The

episode commences with two students (Mena and Rory) and a teacher (Lisa) sitting in front of a laptop

computer located on a bench in the classroom. A third student is standing at the side of the activity,

manipulating a toy on the bench, but does not explicitly engage with the Web search activity. Other

students were able to select different learning experiences including building with blocks, reading books,

drawing, and creating insects with plasticine. As soon as the Web search begins, the teacher and the two

children initiate a search for images of lady beetles to identify the ones that Mena saw in the kindergarten

garden.

Extract 1 starts one and half minutes into the episode. The teacher calls for a student to display her factual



knowledge asking a question about the lady beetle image that Mena had identified as the same type of

beetle that she had seen in the garden.

Extract 1 (06082012 1:30-1:39)

112 ((Participants look at the image search results displayed as thumbnails on the

computer screen.))

113 LIS: pt. .ohhhh °it was like that one.° (.) 114 ꜛ>did it< have spots? ((gazes at Mena))

115 (0.9)

116 Men: ((nods))

117 LIS: ꜛlike that one ꜜdid it.((gaze returns to screen))

118 LIS: ((gazes at Rory))

119 LIS: have you seen >lady beetles< like that too Rory?

The teacher sets the topical agenda by focusing on the physical features of the lady beetle. After

identifying the image that represents the ladybeetle seen by Mena (112), the teacher initiates a question that

focuses on factual information about the lady beetle (114) and, by gazing at Mena, selects her as the

receiver of her question. By employing a YNI (Raymond, 2006), a closed question, Mena is being called on

to provide a confirmation or a disconfirmation concerning a piece of factual information. The teacher’s use

of a YNI question format works to restrict what can and cannot be said, and within a Yes/No single word

utterance. In response, Mena delivers an unproblematic type-conforming nod (116), confirming that the

lady beetle she saw in the garden had spots similar to the one identified on the screen.

In a move to clarify and to continue Mena’s engagement, the teacher seeks additional confirmation (117).

When Mena does not respond, the teacher shifts the focus from the factual information about the ladybeetle

to finding out whether Rory had seen lady beetles like the one Mena had seen. This move is designed to

include Rory in the conversation and also shifts the attention away from Mena.

Extract 2, two minutes into the interaction, investigates what happens when the student responds with a

type conforming dispreferred response. In this extract, the teacher implements her second YNI focusing on

factual information aimed at calling for the students to label the ladybeetle’s antennae.

Extract 4 (06082012 2:07-2.30)

151 LIS: and look you can see their six legs.

152 (.3)

153 one two three four five >six<= >ꜛare they legs¿ꜜ< ((points at screen)) 154 (1.3)

155 Men: na:::a ((animated tone))=

156 LIS: =what’s tha:t. ((gazes at Mena))

157 (1.6)

The teacher’s next question focuses on factual information relating to the number of legs a lady beetle has

and asks for a label for the antennas. She instructs the students to “look” and counts aloud as she points to

the lady beetles legs. In her turn she points at the picture of the ladybeetle’s antennas on the screen and

initiates a YNI (153), usually designed for a type conforming agreement of yes. When the teacher points to

antennas and asks “are they legs” (153), the answer to this YNI is no. Her question is framed for a

dispreferred response and could potentially cause interactional trouble. Following her YNI, there is a

silence of 1.3 seconds (154). The ‘standard maximum’ silence in interaction is 1.0 seconds (Jefferson,

1989) and the longer pause of 1.3 seconds (154) here indicates interactional trouble. The interactional

trouble might have something to do with the way the question was asked because YNI’s preference

agreement (Heritage, 1984; Pomerantz & Heritage, 2013; Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987). Mena’s long

pause before she responds (154) suggests that she does know that what the teacher points at are not legs.

Her response is a type conforming, but dispreferred, response in that she responds with a ‘na:::a’, delivered

with an animated tone. Mena deals with the dispreferred response through her animated tone, which works



to align with the preference principal. The preference principle is, “if possible, avoid or minimize explicitly

stated disconfirmations in favor of confirmations” (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2013, p. 213). Mena’s animated

tone delivers, in a friendly, minimal way, disagreement to the teacher’s question. Here is a YNI that

receives a type-conforming dispreferred response. In a contingent move by the teacher, she initiates an

insertion sequence, changing the question design that works to continue the current topic, aimed at

labelling the antennas.

Extracts 1 and 2 showed how YNIs simply request confirmation or disconfirmation of an assertion made

within the turn (Heritage, 2012). When responses are type conforming preferred responses, the YNI works

to restrict the focus for participants and achieves moving the interaction along. Dispreferred and non-type

conforming responses require further interactional work in order to manage the difficulties associated with

them, and to maintain the current topic as a focus for participants. Dispreferred and non-type conforming

responses will be investigated later in this paper. The next section investigates ‘Wh’ question designs in

the interaction.

‘Wh’ Question designs

Five sequences, out of a total of ten that initiated a call for factual knowledge from students, involved using

a ‘Wh’ question design. As mentioned previously, ‘Wh’ questions typically attract longer “phrasal or

clausal response[s]” (Stivers, 2010, p. 5), and are often used by teachers to ‘test’ the student’s prior

knowledge. In all but one occasion the ‘Wh’ question design proved problematic for the students. Before

investigating the ‘Wh’ questions that results in problematic responses, Extract 3 looks at the only example

in this episode where the ‘Wh’ question is unproblematic and receives a type-conforming response.

Extract 3 (06082012 6:15-6:20)

391 LIS: -> =>what do you think< he’s ꜜ looking for.

392 (.9)

393 Ror: foo::d

394 (.5)

395 LIS: mmꜜmmm.

The teacher initiates a ‘Wh’ question (391). Rory’s type conforming response (393), the correct response,

aligns with the design of the question, acknowledged by the teacher in her next turn (395). The teacher’s

question had reduced the epistemic gradient and positioned Rory as having some knowledge, and his type

conforming response progressed the interaction in an unproblematic manner. Problematic requests,

however, can lead to a participant’s silence, mitigated responses and non-answer responses such as ‘I don’t

know’, and impact on the flow of the interaction. Extract 4 shows a problematic request.

Extract 4 (06082012 3:59-4:18)

256 LIS: -> what do you know about them.

257 (.5) [((continues typing ‘hairy’))]

258 Ror: [u:mm ]

259 LIS: [(2.5)] continues typing ‘caterpillar’]

260 Ror: [they- ]

261 LIS: (2.5) ((completes modifying the search term=

262 and [activates the search)) ]

263 Ror: [I’ll show you the one that wooked a bit]

(.4) wike the one that came up (.) into my house_

265 COM: ((displays search results))

266 ((participants look at the computer screen. Teacher’s hand on the trackpad))

267 LIS: ((manipulates track pad to scroll down page))

268 LIS: alright.

269 (1.0)

270 LIS: let’s have a look_ ((manipulates trackpad to scroll again))

271 (.6)



Extract 4 begins with the teacher pursuing Rory’s factual knowledge asking, “what do you know about

them.” (256) as she enters the search term into the search engine. The ‘Wh’ question attracts a problematic

response from Rory who uses the thinking token ‘um’ (258) to bid for time. He begins a response (260)

before cutting it off. Instead of answering the “Wh’ question (256), Rory’s next turn works to change the

activity from recalling factual information to finding an image of the hairy caterpillar that had come into

his house (263), which was the reason they initiated a Web search for the hairy caterpillar in the first place.

The teacher accepts this refocus (268-271), after the computer returns the search results.

Declaratives prefaced with ‘I wonder’

Declaratives, prefaced with ‘I wonder,’ is the third interactional resource employed by the teacher to call

for students to display their factual knowledge. Although it was used only once during the interaction,

analysis of extract 5 shows how it mobilised a longer turn at talk for the student in response.

Extract 5 (06082012 5:17-5:44)

336 Com: ((pictures loads completely))

337 ((Participants look at the enlarged image of the selected hairy caterpillar))

338 LIS: <now we can see it up close_>

339 (.3) ((hand on trackpad))

340 ooooohhhhhhh my goodness.

341 ((looks at children))

342 (1.8)

343 LIS: very hairy-=>I wonder what< kind of ka- butterfly it would

344 turn into.

345 (.5)

346 Ror: a hairy one=

347 Ror: = because [it’s a ] <ha- hairy: caterpillar_>

348 LIS: [°a hair°-]

349 LIS: so do you think hairy caterpillars turn into hairy butterflies,

350 ???: no::

351 LIS: ꜛwhat would their ꜛcocoons, ꜜlook like.

The teacher initiates a declarative prefaced with ‘I wonder’ in line 344 asking about what kind of butterfly

it might turn into, designed to call for the student’s factual knowledge. Curl and Drew (2008) point out that

speakers usually make requests prefaced with, ‘I wonder’ if they perceive that their request may be

problematic for the recipient, and therefore have less expectation of the person answering being able to

deliver what they want. The teacher’s request in line 343 could have been challenging as it is a more

complex request in comparison to the labelling task of extract 2 (line 156). Rory’s response, however, is

delivered in a straightforward manner without a significant pause, showing that the request and response

were unproblematic. He volunteers, “a hairy one= ” (347), follows with a latched turn justifying his

suggestion, “= because [it’s a ] <ha- hairy: caterpillar_>“ (348). Here, this “I wonder ...” prefaced

declarative achieves an unproblematic response, even though the response may be incorrect, which the

teacher deals with in her next turn. We also see the response involved a longer turn at talk. The student’s

longer turn at talk is particularly relevant for early childhood education where teachers are encouraged to

“engage in sustained shared conversations” (Department of Education Employment and Workplace

relations, 2009, p. 5) and promote opportunities for children to “talk and share ideas” (Queensland Studies

Authority, 2010, p. 59).

In an effort to connect the prior turns at talk, and to possibly query Rory’s response, the teacher commences

with the discourse marker, “so” and follows with a YNI, collating Rory’s ideas (349). She repeats aspects

of Rory’s response and justification, designed as a YNI to question his idea. Although it is not clear if Rory

responded, this YNI received a type-conforming no, although this dispreferred response was not oriented to

by the participants. The teacher, instead, implements another ‘Wh’ question (351) and changes the focus to

what hairy caterpillar cocoons would look like, another ‘Wh’ question that causes interactional problems.



Dispreferred and non-type conforming responses cause interaction problems and are the focus of the next

section.

Dispreferred and/or non-type conforming responses

Dispreferred and non-type conforming responses require additional interactional work by the teacher to

maintain the current topic of talk and were evident in the teacher’s third turn at talk. Aligning with Lee’s

(2007) notion of the teacher’s third turn being based on contingency, analysis shows that during her third

turn the teacher modified her interactions to incorporate the student’s response. Modifications help to

mobilise a response from students (Stivers & Rossano, 2010).

Extract 6 is the extended interaction (building on extract 2) that shows how the teacher in her third turn at

talk inserted a sequence of talk that achieved gaining a response from the students. To maintain the current

topic of talk, the teacher initiated expanded sequences of talk using modified questions and altered question

designs.

Extract 6 (incorporating extract 2) (06082012 2:07-2.30)

151 LIS: and look you can see their six legs.

152 (.3)

153 one two three four five >six<= >ꜛare they legs¿ꜜ< ((points at 154 screen))

155 (1.3)

156 Men: na:::a ((animated tone))=

157 LIS: =what’s tha:t. ((gazes at Mena))

158 (1.6)

159 LIS: >ꜛI wonder what< that ꜜis.

160 (.6)

161 Men: ey::es.((gazes at Lisa))

162 (.6)

163 LIS: ꜛey:es! ¿= 164 =do you think it might be eye:s.

165 (2.2)((all gaze at screen))

166 Ror: an:tennaes_ ((looking at Lisa))

167 (.4)

168 LIS: >you think it might be< ꜛantennaes ꜜRory.=

169 (.1)

170 Men: =this is-=

171 LIS: =>ꜛwhat do they use,< antennaes for.((gazes at Rory))

After Mena delivers the dispreferred response of “na:::a” (156), Lisa takes her third turn at talk, an

insertion sequence that maintains the original focus - the antennae of the lady beetle. Mena displays to the

teacher that she knows that the antennae are not legs, and the teacher now calls for Mena to produce the

label for them. The teacher gazes at Mena and asks the ‘Wh’ question “what’s tha:t.” (157).

It would make sense to consider that the teacher is probably familiar with the label of antennae that she

seeks from Mena. For this reason, the question appears to work as a test question with the teacher in K+

(Heritage & Raymond, 2012) position and the student in K- (Heritage & Raymond, 2012). The subsequent

1.6 seconds (158) of silence is treated as troublesome, and the teacher initiates another turn to talk (line

159). The teacher reformulates her earlier question. Her initial question “what’s tha:t.” (157) is modified to

>ꜛI wonder what< that ꜜis. (159), designed to soften the question, and achieved removing the ‘test’

component. The “I wonder what” format narrows the epistemic gap between the teacher and Mena so that

the teacher’s request does not expect that Mena should know the label. Another long silence of 1.3 seconds

follows, and this time Mena responds. She proffers the label, “ey::es.” (161), an incorrect response, but

nevertheless a response that the teacher mobilised through her question reformulation.

The teacher now incorporates Mena’s display of knowledge (or lack of it) into the interaction to provide

her with the opportunity to learn the label for the antennae. She repeats Mena’s suggestion, “ꜛey:es! ¿=”

(163), delivered with an animated tone and rising intonation. Rising intonation can infer questioning that



could work to challenge Mena’s response, and the teacher quickly asks for confirmation “=do you think it

might be eye:s.” (164). After 2.2 seconds of silence, Rory self-selects to talk. His self-selected turn to talk

follows the turn taking model identified by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) in that other participants

can self-select a turn to talk in conversation when the ‘speaker selected person’ does not respond, and an

interactionally significant amount of silence has occurred. Rory’s suggestion of, “an:tennaes” (166) is in

response to the teacher’s wondering (159). His gaze on the teacher signals that this is a relevant place for

her to respond. Even though Rory has found the ‘correct label’, the teacher does not make an explicit

assessment. Instead she stops ‘looking for the label’ and progresses to ask another ‘Wh’ question (171)

targeting additional factual information about what ladybeetles use antennae for. Her progression of the

interaction to a new type of knowledge sought might show the participants that Rory’s response was indeed

correct, however it was not explicitly assessed as being so.

Discussion:

The teacher initiated ten sequences of interaction that employed a variety of question formats that called for

students to display their factual knowledge. Table 1 summarises how the teacher uses the 3 types of

question formats, the Yes/No Interrogatives (YNI), ‘Wh’ questions and declaratives prefaced with ‘I

wonder…’, to call for factual knowledge from students.

Table 1. Question formats that call on student’s factual knowledge

Calls for factual

Knowledge

Number

implemented

Example

Yes/No Interrogative 4 ꜛ>did it< have spots?

‘Wh’ question 5 =>ꜛwhat do they use,<

antennaes for.((gazes at

Rory))

“I wonder …”

preface declarative

1 -=>I wonder what< kind of

ka- butterfly it would

turn into.

Analysis of this interaction shows that the design of the teacher’s request for factual information does

indeed affect the response type. Type conforming responses to YNIs elicited either confirmations or

disconfirmations, all but one of the ‘wh’ questions posed issues for the students in their responses, and

declaratives prefaced with “I Wonder …” achieved a response to complex questions.

When interactional problems occurred, the teacher reformulated the question design in order to pursue the

student’s display of factual knowledge (or lack of it). Two main modifications to question designs were

used by the teacher in the interaction. These modifications included (i) the reformulation of a direct ‘wh’

question to a softer, indirect request for information (e.g . =what’s tha:t.(156) became >ꜛI wonder what<

that ꜜis. (158)) and (ii) the alteration of a ‘Wh’ question to a YNI. Through reformulation, the teacher

achieved maintaining the focus of the original question and mobilising a response from the students.



Conclusion:

Knowledge of how question designs are used by teachers in order to mobilise a response has implications

for classroom interactions. First, the design of the question can encourage (or discourage) students from

responding, and can call for one word or longer turns of talk in their answers. For example, when

comparing ‘Wh’ questions, which seem to be ‘tests’ of knowledge, with declaratives prefaced with ‘I

wonder…’, the ‘I wonder…’ declaratives appeared to provide an interactional space that was non-testing

and received a more detailed student response. ‘I wonder …’ prefaced declaratives, therefore, are

recommended as a strategy to encourage children to contribute to unfolding interactions. This design might

also be of value in other interactions, such as brainstorming and problem solving experiences that aim for

students’ contributions. Question designs that remove the ‘test’ and promote risk taking in relation to

‘having-a-go’ at answering, promotes opportunities for sharing knowledge and ideas, which stand to

improve program quality.

Second, lost opportunities for students to display their knowledge may result in lost opportunities to build

on what children know. A student’s response is significant as teachers incorporate what students say into

the flow of the interaction making the information more meaningful and relevant to their local context

(Mercer, 1995). This also has implications for program quality.

Third, this kind of analysis enables teacher practices to be investigated in fine-grained detail, and has

implications for professional in-service and pre-service programs. If teachers are familiar with ways to call

for students’ factual knowledge they can make intentional decisions. Finally, teachers’ knowledge about

the designs of questions may prompt critical reflection and inform future practice.

Acknowledgements:

The project “Interacting with knowledge, interacting with people: Web searching in early childhood” was

funded by the Australian Research Council (DP110104227). The Chief Investigators are Susan Danby,

Karen Thorpe, and Christina Davidson. The project was approved by the human research ethics committees

of Queensland University of Technology (Ref No: 1100001480) and Charles Sturt University. We thank

the teachers, children and families of the Crèche and Kindergarten Association for their participation in this

study.

I would like to thank Susan Danby, Ann Farrell and Karen Thorpe for their support and feedback on earlier

drafts of the paper.

References:

Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority. (n.d.). National Quality Standards : Quality

Area 1 - Educational program and practice. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from

http://www.acecqa.gov.au/Educational-program-and-practice

Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority. (2012). National quality standard assessment

and rating instrument.

Baker, C. (1991). Literacy practices and social relations in classroom reading events. In C. Baker & A.

Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy (pp. 161–191). Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook: The cognitive domain. New York:

David McKay Co Inc.

Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Investing in the early years - A national early childhood

development strategy. Retrieved from

http://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/national_ECD_strategy.pdf



Crèche and Kindergarten Association of Queensland. (2011). Building Waterfalls a living and learning

curriculum framework for adults and children (birth to school age) (2nd ed.). Newmarket, Qld.: Crèche

and Kindergarten Association of Queensland.

Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting.

Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. doi:10.1080/08351810802028613

Department of Education Employment and Workplace relations. (2009). Belonging, being and becoming -

The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-109966

Ehrlich, S., & Freed, A. (2010). The function of questions in institutional discourse: An introduction. In A.

Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why Do You Ask? The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse (pp.

3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA. Retrieved from Connect

Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Burchinal, M., Field, S., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Downer, J. T., … Scott-Little,

C. (2012). A course on effective teacher-child interactions: Effects on teacher beliefs, knowledge and

observed practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 88–123.

doi:10.3102/0002831211434596

Hayano, K. (2013). Question designs in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of

Conversation Analysis (pp. 395–414). Wiley, Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology (p. viii, 336 p.). Cambridge; New York: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on

Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and

resistance in responses to polar questions. In J.-P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and

interactional perspectives (pp. 179–193). Cambridge University Press.

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed., p. vii, 273 p.). Cambridge, UK: Polity

Press.

Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a “standard maximum”

silence of approximately one second in conversation. In Conversation: An interdisiplinary perspective.

Multilingual Matters (pp. 166–196).

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.),

Conversation analysis : studies from the first generation (p. 300 p.). Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Pub.

Koshik, I., Freed, A., & Ehrlick, S. (2010). Questions that convey information in teacher–student

conferences. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why Do You Ask? The Function of Questions in

Institutional Discourse (pp. 159–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA. Retrieved from Connect

Lasley, T. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. In T. Hunt, J. Carper, T. Lasley, & C. Raisch (Eds.), Encyclopedia

of educational reform and dissent (pp. 107–110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Retrieved

from http://dx.doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.4135/9781412957403.n51

Lee, Y. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of

Pragmatics, 39(1), 1204–1230. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCW-

4JMVHR2-1/2/c45aa5ad284117dcbe62bbecc2c59921

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Language and educational processes.

(p. xiii, 261 p.). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.

Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mashburn, A., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher and classroom characteristics

associated with teachers’ ratings of prekindergartners' relationships and behaviors. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(4), 367–380. doi:10.1177/0734282906290594

Mashburn, A., & Pianta, R. (2010). Opportunity in early education: Improving teacher–child interactions

and child outcomes. In A. Reynolds, A. Rolnick, M. Englund, & J. Temple (Eds.), Childhood Programs

and Practices in the First Decade of Life: A Human Capital Integration (pp. 243–265). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183–

213.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons : social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.



Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred

turn shapes. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of

Conversation Analysis (pp. 210–228). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell Press.

Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. In Qualitative Research

Methods; Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Queensland Studies Authority. (2010). Queensland kindergarten learning guideline. Retrieved from

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/qklg.pdf

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of

Responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967.

Raymond, G. (2006). Questions at work: yes/no type interrogatives in institutional contexts. In P. Drew, G.

Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods (pp. 115–135).

London: Sage.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and continguity in sequences in conversation. In G.

Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (Vol. 54–69). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation, volumes I and II. Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking

for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing, guiding,

and factual questions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221–241. doi:10.1007/s10857-

008-9071-2

Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis.

Language in Society (Vol. 37, p. 608). Retrieved from

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1607533851&Fmt=7

&clientId=14394&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in

spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Quality teaching in the early years. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, & M. Fleer (Eds.),

Early childhood education: Society and culture (2nd ed., pp. 147–158). London: Sage.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Manni, L. (2008). “Would you like to tidy up now?” An analysis of adult

questioning in the English Foundation Stage. Early Years, 28(1), 5–22.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy

in the early years. Nottingham, England: Dept. for Education and Skills.

Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation.

Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2772–2781. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing Response. Research on Language & Social Interaction,

43(1), 3–31. doi:10.1080/08351810903471258

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The Effective Provision

of Pre-School Education ( EPPE ) Project The Final Report. London.

Appendix:

Transcription Notation

The transcription system used to transcribe conversational data was developed by Gail Jefferson (2004).

The following notational features were used in the transcripts presented in this chapter. The following

punctuation marks depict the characteristics of speech production, not the conventions of grammar.

bu-u- hyphens mark a cut-off of the preceding sound.

[ a left bracket indicates the overlap onset

] a right bracket indicates where the overlapped speech ends

= no break or gap between turns



(0.3) number in second and tenths of a second indicates the length of an interval

(.) brief interval (less than 0.2) within or between utterances

so:::rry colon represents a sound stretch of immediately prior sound with increases in the

number of colons indicating the longer prolongation

you underline indicates emphasis

shifts into high pitch

shifts into low pitch

DOG loud talk is indicated by upper case

hey? a question mark indicates a rising intonation

dog¿ a Spanish question mark indicates a substantial rise that ends up in the mid to mid-

high end of the speaker’s range

here, a comma indicates a continuing intonation with a slight rise

did. a full stop indicates falling, final intonation

boots underline indicates stress or emphasis via pitch or amplitude. The longer the

underline the greater the emphasis

soft softer, quieter sounds

.>quick< talk is speeded up

<slow> talk is slowed down

.hhh a dot prior to h indicates an in-breath

hhh indicates an out-breath

( ) the talk is not audible

(house) transcriber’s best guess for the talk

(do)/(dig) two equally possible hearings

together! an exclamation mark indicates an animated tone

dr-dirt a single dash indicates a noticeable cut off of the prior word or sound

((walking)) annotation of non-verbal activity

‘I WONDER WHAT YOU KNOW…’: TEACHERS DESIGNING … · ‘I wonder what you know…’:...

Documents

Transcript of ‘I WONDER WHAT YOU KNOW…’: TEACHERS DESIGNING … · ‘I wonder what you know…’:...